MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393969168 · doi:10.1093/deafed/enad038

Family-Centered Early Intervention Deaf/Hard of Hearing (FCEI-DHH): Guiding Values

2024· article· en· W4393969168 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Pat Moeller, Amy Szarkowski, Elaine Gale, Trudy Smith, Bianca C Birdsey, Sheila Moodie, Gwen Carr, Arlene Stredler-Brown, Christine Yoshinaga‐Itano, Daniel Holzinger

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)PsychologyContext (archaeology)Diversity (politics)Developmental psychologyPsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is the second of eight articles in this special issue on Family-Centered Early Intervention (FCEI) for children who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH) and their families, or FCEI-DHH.Five foundational values that guide FCEI-DHH are described, providing an evidence-informed, conceptual context for the 10 FCEI-DHH Principles and other articles presented in this issue.These values are applicable for Early Intervention (EI) Providers and other professionals on FCEI teams, as well as for FCEI-DHH programs/services and systems.The five key values include (1) being family-centered, (2) responding to diversity, (3) involving invested parties, especially families and individuals who are DHH, (4) supporting holistic child development, and (5) ensuring fundamental human rights.These evidence-informed values are considered essential to the effective provision of FCEI-DHH supports.This is the second of eight articles that comprise a special issue on Family-Centered Early Intervention (FCEI) for families with children who are deaf or hard of hearing (DHH), or FCEI-DHH.This article highlights the rationale for provision of FCEI-DHH supports for families with children who are DHH, defines key terms relevant to FCEI-DHH, describes the Guiding Values upon which FCEI-DHH supports and interventions are built, and provides international resources that can be used to justify the establishment and implementation of FCEI-DHH across the globe.Hintermair et al., 2017;Jackson, 2011).Based on the evidence of these benefits, FCEI-DHH is strongly endorsed. Key constructs in FCEI-DHH FamilyWhen the term "family" is used in this article and throughout the special issue, it is intended in the broadest possible sense.Simply put, "family" can be anyone the family identifies as being part of their family.This may include diverse configurations, multiple generations, and/or community kinship relationships (see Sass-Lehrer, Porter, & Wu, 2016;Störbeck & Young, 2016, and Value 2 of this article).Understanding the broad and diverse nature of "families" is critical to the effective implementation of FCEI-DHH and to truly "being family-centered" (see Value 1 of this article).Furthermore, there is considerable variation across the globe in families' cultural backgrounds as well as in individual and societal conceptualizations of family (see Szarkowski & Moeller, et al., 2024, Support Principles, this issue). LanguageThe term "language" involves the use of spoken, manual (signed), or written symbols to participate in culture and express one's ideas.Language is learned through a f lexible process of coconstructing meaning and knowledge through social interaction with others (Brea-Spahn & Vaz Bauler, 2023).Around the globe, families of children who are DHH communicate in diverse languages in their homes and communities.They may use a single language or multiple languages, including languages that are signed and spoken (Bowen & Baker, 2022).Ensuring that cultural and linguistic diversity is acknowledged, respected, and addressed in FCEI-DHH is critical to preserving the dignity of the family and their fundamental rights as human beings (see Szarkowski & Moeller et al., 2024, Cultural & Global Implications, this issue, Value 5). Overview and definitions of the Guiding Values of FCEI-DHHFive overarching values are considered essential for the implementation of FCEI-DHH.This article identifies and describes these five values, establishing a conceptual foundation for the 10 FCEI-DHH Principles that follow in this special issue (the 10 FCEI-DHH Principles are described across three articles: Moeller et al., 2024, Foundation Principles; Szarkowski & Moeller et al., 2024, Support Principles; Szarkowski et al., 2024, Structure Principles, this issue).The five Guiding Values include (1) being family-centered, (2) responding to diversity, (3) involving invested parties, especially families and individuals who are DHH, (4) fostering holistic child development, and (5) ensuring fundamental human rights.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.020
Scholarly communication0.0170.010
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0090.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.181
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf EducationSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207